CRISPR ... the Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction?

[ExomatrixTV]

Val Altounian/Science
CRISPR—a weapon of mass destruction?

Which of these threats to our existence is not like the others: North Korean nukes, Russian cruise missiles, and … the gene-editing technology CRISPR. A global threat assessment released this week by U.S. director of national intelligence James Clapper placed “genome editing” among six threats listed in the section on weapons of mass destruction. The inclusion of CRISPR and related techniques in the gallery of rogues came as a surprise to some bioweapons experts, MIT Technology Review reports, though there has already been speculation that ever cheaper and more efficient editing techniques could allow terrorists to develop crop plagues or deadly viruses that shred our DNA. The American public has also registered its fears about CRISPR’s potential. In a 1000-person poll released today by STAT and Harvard’s T. H. Chan School of Public Health, 65% thought it should be illegal to alter the genes of unborn babies to reduce the risk of serious diseases, and 83% opposed such editing to improve “intelligence or physical characteristics.”

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/sifte...ss-destruction

Top U.S. Intelligence Official Calls Gene Editing a WMD Threat

Easy to use. Hard to control. The intelligence community now sees CRISPR as a threat to national safety.

Genome editing is a weapon of mass destruction.


That’s according to James Clapper, U.S. director of national intelligence, who on Tuesday, in the annual worldwide threat assessment report of the U.S. intelligence community, added gene editing to a list of threats posed by “weapons of mass destruction and proliferation.”


Gene editing refers to several novel ways to alter the DNA inside living cells. The most popular method, CRISPR, has been revolutionizing scientific research, leading to novel animals and crops, and is likely to power a new generation of gene treatments for serious diseases (see “Everything You Need to Know About CRISPR’s Monster Year”).

It is gene editing’s relative ease of use that worries the U.S. intelligence community, according to the assessment. “Given the broad distribution, low cost, and accelerated pace of development of this dual-use technology, its deliberate or unintentional misuse might lead to far-reaching economic and national security implications,” the report said.


The choice by the U.S. spy chief to call out gene editing as a potential weapon of mass destruction, or WMD, surprised some experts. It was the only biotechnology appearing in a tally of six more conventional threats, like North Korea’s suspected nuclear detonation on January 6, Syria’s undeclared chemical weapons, and new Russian cruise missiles that might violate an international treaty.

James Clapper, the U.S. director of national intelligence, oversees spying agencies with a combined budget of more than $50 billion.
The report is an unclassified version of the “collective insights” of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and half a dozen other U.S. spy and fact-gathering operations.

Although the report doesn’t mention CRISPR by name, Clapper clearly had the newest and the most versatile of the gene-editing systems in mind. The CRISPR technique’s low cost and relative ease of use—the basic ingredients can be bought online for $60—seems to have spooked intelligence agencies.

“Research in genome editing conducted by countries with different regulatory or ethical standards than those of Western countries probably increases the risk of the creation of potentially harmful biological agents or products,” the report said.

The concern is that biotechnology is a “dual use” technology—meaning normal scientific developments could also be harnessed as weapons. The report noted that new discoveries “move easily in the globalized economy, as do personnel with the scientific expertise to design and use them.”

Clapper didn’t lay out any particular bioweapons scenarios, but scientists have previously speculated about whether CRISPR could be used to make “killer mosquitoes,” plagues that wipe out staple crops, or even a virus that snips at people’s DNA.

“Biotechnology, more than any other domain, has great potential for human good, but also has the possibility to be misused,” says Daniel Gerstein, a senior policy analyst at RAND and a former under secretary at the Department of Homeland Defense. “We are worried about people developing some sort of pathogen with robust capabilities, but we are also concerned about the chance of misutilization. We could have an accident occur with gene editing that is catastrophic, since the genome is the very essence of life.”

Piers Millet, an expert on bioweapons at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C., says Clapper’s singling out of gene editing on the WMD list was “a surprise,” since making a bioweapon—say, an extra-virulent form of anthrax—still requires mastery of a “wide raft of technologies.”

Development of bioweapons is banned by the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, a Cold War–era treaty that outlawed biological warfare programs. The U.S., China, Russia, and 172 other countries have signed it. Millet says that experts who met in Warsaw last September to discuss the treaty felt a threat from terrorist groups was still remote, given the complexity of producing a bioweapon. Millet says the group concluded that “for the foreseeable future, such applications are only within the grasp of states.”

The intelligence assessment drew specific attention to the possibility of using CRISPR to edit the DNA of human embryos to produce genetic changes in the next generation of people—for example, to remove disease risks. It noted that fast advances in genome editing in 2015 compelled “groups of high-profile U.S. and European biologists to question unregulated editing of the human germ line (cells that are relevant for reproduction), which might create inheritable genetic changes.”

So far, the debate over changing the next generation’s genes has been mostly an ethical question, and the report didn’t say how such a development would be considered a WMD, although it’s possible to imagine a virus designed to kill or injure people by altering their genomes.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=jAhjPd4uNFY

[ExomatrixTV]

As the latest episode of Kurzgesagt so brilliantly explains, just like no one in the '80s believed computers would ever take over everything, most of us today don't really think that genetic editing won't change everything.
And we're wrong, because of CRISPR.

So what exactly is CRISPR? After all, humans have been genetically engineering other species for millennia, by breeding food and pets to have more of the traits we like, and less of the traits we don't.

Once we discovered DNA, we've been figuring out ways to tinker with this process on the back end, too.

Fast forward a few years, and we have genetically engineered mice, genetically engineered humans, and, of course, genetically engineered food.

But while genetic engineering has played an important role in medicine, the existing techniques available up until now have been expensive, slow, and incredibly complicated.

Now, that's all changing. Thanks to CRISPR, the costs of genetic engineering have shrunk by 99 percent basically overnight, Kurzgesagt reports.

Although we're now using CRISPR in humans and other animals, the system was originally found inside bacteria - where it's used as a genetic weapon to stop bacteria being infected by viruses (yes, even microbes get infected, too).

As the video above explains much more beautifully than we can, after a virus has infected a bacteria once, the bacteria keeps a little portion of its DNA locked in a genetic archive called CRISPR.

If it ever gets infected again, this viral DNA is turned into RNA, and is fed into a secret weapon called Cas 9 - an enzyme that hunts down any DNA that matches the one in the archive, and then expertly cuts it out of the bacteria.

"It's almost like a DNA surgeon," Kurzgesagt explains.

So far, so good. But a few years ago, scientists discovered that the CRISPR system is actually programmable, which means that you can tell it any piece of DNA you want removed, put the system into a living cell, and it'll cut that DNA right out of the genome.

Researchers are already using CRISPR to treat disease in animal models, and, as of this month, in humans.

But what we see happening now is - just like the supercomputers of the '80s - nothing compared to what's coming. And that's not just hype.

To fully comprehend exactly what a future with CRISPR might look like, how the system works, and what it all means, you really need to check out the video above, because it's not only fascinating, it's also incredibly important.

What we will say, without giving too much away, is that, if the idea of designer babies makes you uncomfortable, then get ready, because that's a world we're already living in.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hWjlUj7Czlk

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=cWtJTP9Jatg

[Nasu]

Unrelated I'm sure.....

"The US Air Force is looking to acquire samples of ribonucleic acid (RNA) and synovial fluid from Russians, according to a government website used to place tenders. The reason behind the order hasn’t been specified.

The Air Force’s Air Education and Training Command has placed a listing on the Federal Business Opportunities website asking for at least 12 RNA samples from Russian people of a European ancestry, as well as 27 samples of synovial fluid.

Suppliers of the samples must meet a number of requirements.

“All Normal Human Fresh Frozen (FF) Synovial Tissue and Normal Human Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) samples must be Russian / Caucasian origin,” reads the contract’s technical specifications. “All FF Synovial tissue and RNA samples must come from normal donors, who have no musculoskeletal injuries. This shall be confirmed by pathology. All FF synovial tissue must have a weight greater than or at a minimum of 0.25 grams.

“All RNA samples must be frozen. Synovial Tissues and RNA samples can be unmatched, meaning from different donors. All Synovial Tissue and RNA samples must be HIV, HBV, HCV and syphilis negative.”

In addition, information on donors must be provided with the samples, including their sex, age, ethnicity, smoking history, medical history, height, weight and Body Mass Index (BMI). The samples must be delivered to the Lackland Air Force Base near San Antonio, Texas, within 10 days after the contractor receives the money...

[Satori]

Not only NO!, but HELL NO!!

[Spiral]

Posted by ExomatrixTV (here)
What we will say, without giving too much away, is that, if the idea of designer babies makes you uncomfortable, then get ready, because that's a world we're already living in.

Already for many years now, the evidence is out there & right in your face for anyone who cares to research this.

Case in point, Prince "GMO" George...... if anyone thinks for one minute he is the biological product of a homosexual & woman who has never gestated a fetus please explain how he came about ?

But that's just the tip of a very big iceberg, most of which seems to sit over the UK for some reason, just google various key words like "life sciences" & "porton down" (most of which is now foreign investment & new labs springing up left right & centre ) & you could do worse than looking at a very famous case about a supposedly missing/ abducted child ...

[Bubu]

any innovation at this point of human existence will be use against the masses it would be better that we stop innovating until the elite is out of power. The best innovations at this time is the ones that will help eliminate the controllers.

[Yetti]

Science community get their paycheck from a university , a corporation , or the government, where ethics are no longer a requirement to function. I see this very scary to say the least.
posibilities are endless but the dangers beneath are even greater.
Any toughs? folks.....

[onawah]

CRISPR Gene Editing Can Trigger Cancer, Two Studies Warn
June 26, 2018 By Dr. Mercola
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=347604303

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=r_yqbrETO4U

"Story at-a-glance
CRISPR-Cas9, a form of “molecular scissors,” allows for very precise DNA editing, i.e., the removal, addition or altering of sections of a DNA sequence
While CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing is more precise in that you can target a specific area of the genome, two recent studies warn the gene editing process can trigger cancer
When you cut the two double helix strands of the DNA, the injury triggers the cell to activate a gene called p53 — a “biochemical first-aid kit” that either mends the DNA break or signals the cell to self-destruct; so, either the genome edit is mended or the cell dies
In instances where the cell survives and accepts the edit, it does so because it has dysfunctional p53, and p53 dysfunction has been shown to significantly increase your risk of cancer
CRISPR stock dropped between 5 and 13 percent within days of the findings’ publication"

"The discovery of the gene editing method known as CRISPR1 eventually led to a novel gene editing tool called CRISPR-Cas9,2 a form of molecular scissors that allows for far more accurate DNA editing for the removal, addition or altering of sections of a DNA sequence. A layman’s explanation of the technology is presented in the video above.

CRISPR is the acronym for clustered regularly interspaced short palindrome repeat, and its function was initially discovered in 1993 by Spanish researcher Francisco Mojica.3 Mojica hypothesized CRISPR is an adaptive immune system, which has since been confirmed. Two decades later, in 2013, the technology known as CRISPR-Cas9 was successfully used to edit the genome in eukaryotic cells for the first time, demonstrating targeted genome cleavage could be achieved in mouse and human cells.

As reported by Nature4 in 2016, “Researchers use CRISPR-Cas9 to make precise changes to genomes that remove or edit a faulty gene. It has worked on nearly every creature on which they have tested it, including human embryos.” In the wake of these discoveries, a number of CRISPR-based companies have sprung to life with the hopes of furthering gene editing in everything from food and medicine5 to eventually producing “designer babies” that have had unwanted genetic traits edited out.

However, while CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing is more precise in that you can target a specific area of the genome, two recent studies call for a rethink, as the process of gene editing can trigger cancer.6,7 As noted by STAT News8 these findings could be “a potential game-changer for the companies developing CRISPR-based therapies.”

CRISPR Editing Triggers Tumor Growth
The two studies9,10 were published in Nature medicine, and present a sobering warning to scientists hell-bent on defeating nature. It appears that cells whose genomes are successfully edited by CRISPR-Cas9 have carcinogenic potential, turning them into proverbial ticking time bombs. As reported by STAT News:11

“CRISPR has already dodged two potentially fatal bullets — a 2017 claim12 that it causes sky-high numbers of off-target effects was retracted13 in March, and a report14 of human immunity to Cas9 was largely shrugged off as solvable.15 But experts are taking the cancer-risk finding seriously.”

Indeed, CNBC16 and Market Watch17 reported CRISPR stock dropped between 5 and 13 percent within days of the findings’ publication. The two studies — one performed by scientists at the Karolinska Institute18 in Sweden and Cambridge University in the U.K., the other by the Novartis Research Institute in Boston19 — both found the same thing.

When you cut the two double helix strands of the DNA, the injury triggers the cell to activate a gene called p53, described as a “biochemical first-aid kit” that either mends the DNA break or signals the cell to self-destruct. As noted in the featured article, “Whichever action p53 takes, the consequence is the same: CRISPR doesn’t work, either because the genome edit is stitched up or the cell is dead.”

Cutting the Genome Activates Repair-or-Kill Mechanism
According to the Novartis team, p53 lowers CRISPR efficiency seventeenfold in pluripotent stem cells — stem cells that can turn into virtually any other cell and are therefore a primary candidate for the development of therapies targeted at a wide array of diseases. This helps explain previous findings that suggest CRISPR isn’t nearly as efficient as initially hoped.

According to STAT News, “CRISPR is woefully inefficient, with only a small minority of cells into which CRISPR is introduced, usually by a virus, actually having their genomes edited as intended.” Emma Haapaniemi, who led the Swedish team, noted that since cutting the genome is what activates p53, genome editing becomes a very difficult undertaking.

Importantly, both teams discovered that in instances where the cell actually survives and accepts the edit, it does so because it has dysfunctional p53, and p53 dysfunction has been shown to significantly increase your risk of cancer. Mutations of this particular gene are thought to be responsible for:20

50 percent of ovarian cancers
43 percent of colorectal cancers
38 percent of lung cancers
33 percent of pancreatic, stomach and liver cancers
25 percent of breast cancers
“By picking cells that have successfully repaired the damaged gene we intended to fix, we might inadvertently also pick cells without functional p53. If transplanted into a patient, as in gene therapy for inherited diseases, such cells could give rise to cancer, raising concerns for the safety of CRISPR-based gene therapies,” Haapaniemi told the New York Post.21

The Catch-22 of Gene Editing
In other words, even if scientists become exceptionally adept at accurately cutting out and inserting new DNA sequences, when the process works as intended, it’s because p53 fails to do its job, which significantly raises the risk of cancer formation.

It’s a real Catch-22 that puts a significant damper on the idea that we can customize the genome to our own liking simply by cutting and splicing DNA sequences. It appears nature has built-in fail-safe systems for this eventuality. As noted by the Novartis team, “it will be critical to ensure that [genome-edited cells] have a functional p53 before and after [genome] engineering.”

All hope is not lost, however. It’s possible that these findings may be applicable only when you replace disease-causing DNA with a healthy DNA sequence, and not when you’re just removing a piece of the DNA sequence, so CRISPR may still be useful in some instances. As explained in the featured article,22 the genome can be edited with CRISPR in two different ways:

Non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), also referred to as gene disruption. This is where a disease-causing section of DNA is simply cut out and not replaced. NHEJ is currently being used by CRISPR Therapeutics in their development of a treatment for sickle cell disease. Others are working on treatments for cystic fibrosis and severe immunodeficiency using gene disruption
Homology-directed repair (HDR) or gene correction. Here, the disease-causing section is cut out and replaced with a healthy section. HDR is being investigated for the treatment of muscular dystrophy and other diseases
Stem Cell DNA Are Most Difficult to Edit
At present, any therapy based on CRISPR technology would have to involve three steps: Remove cells from your body; alter the DNA, and then reintroduce the cells into your body. However, CRISPR-based companies are also working on technologies for editing the genome right inside your body, without having to take out and reinsert the cells.

This presents a far greater challenge, and while it would broaden the range of diseases that could be addressed, it may also be far more dangerous with any number of potential side effects — including cancer, according to these two studies.

For now, it appears NHEJ doesn’t trigger p53 to undo the edit when used in regular cells, which companies using gene disruption take as a hopeful sign. (CRISPR Therapeutics, which has entered a joint venture with Bayer to create drugs for blood disorders and blindness using CRISPR technology, is one of these companies.) Therapies using CRISPR base editing, a technique that does not cut the two helix strands that trigger p53, may also avoid the carcinogenic problem posed by p53.

Stem cells, on the other hand, seem to have more robust defenses against genetic alterations. The Novartis team showed that p53 needs to be inactivated both for NHEJ and HDR to be a success when using stem cells. And, as noted by STAT News, “That could be an issue for therapies using CRISPR’d stem cells: The same dysfunctional p53 that allows CRISPR to work its magic also makes cells likely to become cancerous.”

Unintended and Unforeseeable Side Effects Abound in Genetic Engineering
CRISPR may be far more sophisticated and precise than previous genetic engineering techniques, but precision is no guarantee of safety, as these two studies reveal. There have been many occasions where a genetically engineered (GE) crop has been shown to be unexpectedly toxic or allergenic when the conventional crop had no such issues. The reality is that scientists really don’t know what side effects may be produced by DNA tampering. The effects are extremely unpredictable.

Even CRISPR, for all its precision, creates off-target effects. This is a serious concern not only in medicine but also in agriculture. As noted in a recent paper,23 “CRISPR technology is erasing barriers to genome editing and could revolutionize plant breeding.” In plants, the potential for unintended effects such as toxicity and allergic potential remain high even with CRISPR technology, for the simple fact that when you alter one or two genes in a genome the side effects ripple through the whole genome.

A new protein could be created in the process that could be toxic or allergenic, or you could change the biochemical pathways of a plant, making it less nutritious or more toxic. Moreover, most GE plants are engineered for the express purpose of either expressing an internal insecticide or to tolerate direct herbicide application. So even if CRISPR technology improves the specificity of the genetic alteration, the toxic effects of herbicides and insecticides in the plant remain an issue.

As noted by Claire Robinson, editor of GM Watch and coauthor of “GMO Myths and Truths,” the risk of unintended consequences is so high that even if scientists restricted the insertion of genes into a plant to the very same species, say from corn to corn, these risks still would not disappear. Robinson explains:

“The important thing when you’re genetically engineering a plant is the new context of the gene that you’re putting in. Even if you take the gene out of apples and put it into apples as is the case with the Arctic genetically modified apple, you don’t really know what that’s doing, because all of a sudden the gene is in a new context.”

Plan for ‘Designer Babies’ Could Prove Disastrous
The risks increase exponentially when you start talking about making “designer babies.” As mentioned earlier, the enzyme called Cas9 allows for very precise gene alterations, and has been successfully tested in human embryos. Cas9 uses a specific RNA molecule as a guide to cut the DNA at the precise target. However, as noted by Nature,24 Cas9 sometimes creates unwanted mutations.

This is yet another puzzle piece that would need to be perfected before we start designing humans without genetic predispositions for disease. Over and beyond that, there’s also the fundamental issue of epigenetics, which posits that your environment (diet, lifestyle, toxic exposures and even emotional states) influences how your genes are expressed.

One could argue that it would be far wiser (and easier) to work on eliminating toxins from our food, water, environment and everyday products and focus on lifestyle strategies that support health and well-being rather than trying to design a disease-free human from scratch by tinkering with the genetic code.

If you think designer babies are a far-fetched idea, think again. In December 2015, hundreds of scientists and ethicists met in Washington, D.C., at the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to discuss the sanctioning of germ-line engineering, meaning the altering of DNA in sperm, eggs and embryos to remove or correct genetic defects.25

Last year, a report26 by the NAS and the National Academy of Medicine concluded that gene editing of human embryos to prevent disease “might be permitted, but only following much more research” on risks and benefits, and “only for compelling reasons and under strict oversight.”

One “compelling reason” given by committee co-chair Alta Charo, bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, would be if both would-be parents have serious genetic disease, and gene editing of the embryo would be “the last reasonable option” to have a healthy biological child.

Still, while designer babies are not in our immediate future, considering the pace at which scientific progress moves, it seems reasonable to suspect that genetic engineering of humans will eventually come to pass. CRISPR-Cas9 provides the means to do so already,27 but that doesn’t mean we’ll ever know enough about gene editing to actually do a good job of it.

Clearly, there are as many hazards as there are opportunities for this and future gene editing technologies. Genetic diseases and defects could potentially be eradicated, and any number of diseases might be cured once they strike with this technology. On the other hand, introduced mutations or side effects might leave a child worse off, or cause unintended generational effects. At that point, it might be too late to fix or stop the problems we created."

[onawah]

Gene therapy and the trans-human agenda Cure disease or alter humans?
Nov 28, 2018
by Jon Rappoport
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2...-human-agenda/
"“Researchers say they’re well on the way to curing thousands of diseases by tinkering with human genes. But is that true? Or is their effort really part of a long-range agenda to keep experimenting in the dark, through grotesque trial and error, to alter humans and make them into a new species?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

With the onrush of new gene-editing techniques, the medical research establishment is beating an old drum: they will cure many human diseases by making genetic changes.

First of all, the new editing techniques have unknown consequences. A simple snip of a gene can bring on ripples in the patient’s overall genetic structure. This fact spells danger.

Second, and here is the old drum: there are a number of diseases caused by a problem with a single gene—one gene, one disease. Therefore, a precise edit of the offending gene will cure the disease.

But is this one-gene one-disease hypothesis actually true?

If so, we should already have seen these cures. But we haven’t.

I’m not talking about the occasional claim of a single cure in a single patient. I’m talking about curing a specific disease across the board in many, many patients.

It hasn’t happened.

Here is a very interesting quote from the book, “Understanding Genetics: A District of Columbia Guide for Patients and Health Professionals,” published by the District of Columbia Department of Health:

“Some of the more common single-gene disorders include cystic fibrosis, hemochromatosis, Tay-Sachs, and sickle cell anemia…However, despite advancements in the understanding of genetic etiology and improved diagnostic capabilities, no treatments are available to prevent disease onset or slow disease progression for a number of these disorders.”

Is it “a number of these disorders,” or “all these disorders?”

Let’s see the evidence that single-gene therapy has cured ANY disease across the board.

It isn’t forthcoming.

And since it isn’t, the hypothesis that there are single-gene disorders is at best unproven. Speculative.

Let’s say that for Disease X, researchers have found that, in every case, there is a particular gene that is malfunctioning. The researchers claim, “Well, that’s it, we’ve found the cause of X.” But have they? HOW DO THEY KNOW THERE AREN’T OTHER ESSENTIAL CAUSATIVE FACTORS INVOLVED?

There is a simple test. Correct the malfunctioning gene and watch thousands of cures for X.

Until that occurs, the hypothesis is up in the air. It’s interesting, it’s suggestive, but it isn’t verified. Not by a long shot.

Consider this typically absurd claim from medicine.net: “There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births. These disorders are known as monogenetic disorders (disorders of a single gene).”

Again, how would the authors show that even one of these supposedly 6000 disorders is caused by the malfunctioning of a single gene?

Cure the disease by correcting the gene.

“Well, ahem, we don’t have the technology to do that yet, because we aren’t sure our therapy would be entirely safe. We might bring about dangerous unintended consequences in the patient…”

Fine. Then don’t make the claim that you know a single gene is the cause.

Ah, but you see, the medical research establishment wants to jump the gun. Making bold claims makes them look good. It brings them a great deal of funding.

And it also deflects and stops research that would discover other causes of disease—for example, environmental causes connected to gross corporate pollution. Chemical pollution. The harmful effects of pesticides. And the harmful effects of toxic medical drugs. And vaccines.

“No, no, no. Let’s just say disease is, at bottom, genetic. It doesn’t matter what else is happening.”

The Holy Grail for genetic research would be: “We can cure any harmful impact brought on by environmental toxicity. It’s all in the genes. Major corporations can do whatever they want to, and there will be no danger. There never was any danger. We just needed to advance to the stage where we could correct damage to the genes. And now we’re there.”

They’re not there. They’re not even close. Whether they will ever get close is a matter of sheer speculation.

Here is an extreme but instructive analogy: Imagine that when it rains, an acutely toxic compound falls to Earth. A man stands out in the rain as the poison descends. Researchers assert that the rain isn’t the problem. It’s the man’s body. His body is built to “react negatively” to the poison. Rebuilding his body will make him immune to the poison. Who knows how much sheer trial-and-error rebuilding is necessary? Perhaps he will need to become non-human to survive. So be it.

This approach is part and parcel of the trans-human agenda. Don’t stop the poison. Make the human impervious.

If, in the process, he loses everything that makes him unique and free, that is just collateral damage.

But no matter how many changes are wrought in the human, the poison is still poison. Until, finally, the human is a machine—and then the poison has no effect.

Neither does life. Life has no effect. The machine is adjusted. It survives. It is no longer alive, and that is called victory.

If you think I’m exaggerating transhumanism beyond all possibility, contemplate this statement made by Gregory Stock, former director of the prestigious program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

The basis for such lunacy is the presumption that The Individual isn’t important, and never was.

Whereas, The Individual is all-important.

A sane society would exist and operate on behalf of The Individual.

It isn’t the other way around."

[palehorse]

This thread is a bit old, but totally related to this papers first published in 19 June 2019

Supporting Information: Fast and Efficient CRISPR/Cas9 Genome Editing In Vivo Enabled by Bioreducible Lipid and Messenger RNA Nanoparticles

Summarizing
Materials and Methods
"All chemicals used for lipid synthesis were purchased from Aladdin, TCI or SigmaAldrich and used as received. Firefly luciferase (L-7602) and Cas9 messenger RNA (mRNA) (L-7606) were purchased from Tri-Link Biotechnologies. Mouse serum PCSK9 was determined using a PCSK9 ELISA Kit (Sino Biological, China)."

Lipid Nanoparticle Formulation
The lipids were synthesized by heating amines and acrylate or acrylamide using the
methods described according to our previous reports,[1] and purified using flash
chromatography on silica gel. ..

Intracellular Delivery of Luciferase and RFP mRNA
To screen effective lipid nanoparticle for luciferase mRNA delivery, A375 cells were
seeded in 24-well plate a day before experiment at a density of 50 K per well. At the day of
experiment, 160 ng/mL luciferase mRNA was mixed with 3 μg/mL different lipid
nanoparticles..

Cellular uptake and endosome escape study of BAMEA-O16B/RNA nanoparticles
To confirm the effectiveness of the bioredubile lipid nanoparticle to promote RNA
release in response to reductive intracellular environment,..

Cas9 mRNA/sgRNA delivery and genome editing in vitro
GFP-stably expressed HEK cells were seeded in 48-well plate a day before experiment at
a density of 25 K per well. At the day of experiment, 13 nM GFP-targeting sgRNA was mixed
with different doses of Cas9 mRNA and 5 μg/mL BAMEA-O16B..

Cas9 mRNA/sgRNA delivery and gene editing in vivo
For in vivo luciferase mRNA delivery, female athymic nude mice were injected via tail
vein with BAMEA-O16B/Luci-mRNA nanoparticle at ..

Ref.:

If the PDF do not open, here is direct link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/acti...up-0001-S1.pdf

The original paper was published here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...adma.201902575
but there is one "version" of it available here https://phys.org/news/2019-07-nanopa...ools-cell.html, I couldn't compare both documents, probably this one is just an article based on the scientific paper.. not sure.

It is also available here as Supplementary Material: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6732788/
which is the same summarized above.

This search on google scholars returned quite a few interesting results related to CRISPR, lipid nanoparticles, nanoparticles for mRNA delivery, gene editing, among many other things.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...ar.google.com/